Member Info for TakingMyTime

@Jet, if you are on the Telegram group, could you DM it to me? Thanks.

@tig, yes, that would be possible, too. Not that we would offer 750 million shares for that purpose, but we could offer some of them. Whether the drilling company would accept, of course, would depend on their view of the value of the shares as well as their own cash flow and other considerations.

"Res 5 can be put forward at any time of year by an EGM. Why now?"

Another good question. The answer, in my view, is that this is actually fairly standard business practice for a variety of reasons. Some of the ways it would be used don't allow time for an EGM. Some might involve sensitive negotiations which can't or shouldn't be made public.

My view: a massive dilution, such as the recent ones by IAG / RR, should be approved by shareholders. I would not give a blank cheque beyond 25-30% to a BOD, generally. 18% of current shareholding does not seem excessive to me. Again, this is my view, others will view it differently.

I believe "dilution" can be very valuable if it is used to add value to the company.

Another use would be to acquire either another company or another promising tenement, using shares instead of cash. Again, while it would technically be dilution, presumably it would be done so with the hope that it would add more value than the dilutive effect. A large acquisition using shares should go to the shareholders for approval, but smaller ones may not need to do that, and the need for shareholder approval could kill some deals -- the seller might instead do a deal with someone who is free to act.

@Viking, LOL.

"At best this board is something to prompt our own research"

I both agree and disagree. I'm here to give as well as take when it comes to research / analysis. I don't trust anyone implicitly but if I'm not providing anything useful to others I can't really expect to get much in return.

It's not scaremongering. It's someone who is doing due diligence on one of their investments and looking for answers. They have every right to do that -- it's their money.

No one should be bothered by these questions. There are good answers to them. Having them asked is a good thing. This board should be a place where people can ask questions and people can express honest reservations. (I'm not talking about mindless deramping or asking the same questions over and over after they've already been answered.)

If there are no good answers for the questions, it is even more important that they be asked, so that everyone can be aware of the concerns. We're not here to boost GGP, we're here to work together so we all can make better investment decisions.

The same provision for 750 million shares existed last year (2019) and was not abused.

The same provision, but for 1 billion shares, existed the year before (2018) and was not abused. Likewise for 2017. And for 2016.

I certainly believe that "trust" needs to be followed by "verify" but I think there's sufficient verification to trust here. We're not talking about a 50% dilution, after all, we're talking about 18% of the currently authorised shares. In my view, the BOD has sufficient track record to trust them for 18% of my investment here, and also I believe they risk for themselves much more than 18% by taking inappropriate liberties with the authorisation they request.

I'd suggest (as nicely as I can) that if you don't have that much confidence in them you probably shouldn't have invested here until you did have that much confidence. No one gets absolute trust from me except my wife, but I can trust GH/CB/et al this much.

@loftmonkey
The "preemption rights" means they have to offer new shares to existing shareholders. To disallow the preemption rights means they then have the right to offer (up to 750 million shares) new shares to new investors, without getting prior approval.

They have had this approved over the last year and have used it to give options to employees. They had it the year before and used it to offer new shares and warrants to new investors to raise necessary cash.

This could be used in a number of ways.
1. They could use it to give employees more options to help keep salaries down. This aligns employee interests with shareholder interests, saves cash, and is generally a good move. It won't be even close to 750 million shares for this purpose.
2. They could sell new shares to a big investor / institution (or several) to raise funds for further drilling in Scallywag / PRE / Panorama, wherever.
3. They could use the new shares, in the event of a hostile takeover attempt, to bring a "white knight" into play.

Re the last, suppose Barrick makes an offer of 45p and the BOD says, "Not enough, we're worth more than that." Barrick says, "Fine, we'll just go to the market and see what your shareholders think." A lot of shareholders might say, "Cool!" so there's a danger the takeover could succeed. GH/BOD could get on the phone to NCM, for instance, and say, "Barrick is offering 45p, likely to up it to 50p or more. Would you like to buy 18% (new shares)?"

That 18% makes it much harder for Barrick to get to 50%, and in fact much easier for NCM to get there. It might start a bidding war (which could be pretty cool) but it tips the scale pretty significantly towards NCM if that happens. It might also just cause Barrick to say, "We aren't going to win this one," and go away -- but you'd still, of course, have a massive rerate of the shares if that happened.

The 18% sitting out there at the board's discretion makes any hostile takeover much less likely. It's pretty much saying to raiders, "If you want to make a deal, talk to us. If you want to go hostile, we may not be able to stop you but we do have some tools in our toolbox to hold you off."

The 18% could also simply be used to enrich the BOD at our expense, by issuing themselves excessive numbers of shares. They have had this ability year on year and haven't done so, and if they did, they'd lose our trust, and pretty much kill the company. These guys have a long term view and know that. I have no reason to think there are integrity issues with these people, but even if there are, it's in their own interest to play it straight.

I personally have no concerns about clauses 4&5, and am glad they are looking ahead (as they have been in the past) and keeping their flexibility to respond to different eventualities.

@Hydro, you horrible ramper, you're worse than me.

I know a couple people on this board are in PSN or have been in it, Nige is #1, and he isn't even invested there anymore. But for those who have followed that board, they have exstatex as the #3 ramper.

I suspect it's simply based on a formula that looks at how many posts you have and how many words are in them. So if you explain your reasoning you are more of a ramper than if you just say, "It's going to be 30p tomorrow!"

LOL. I could never be identified by what I've posted on here. It's a good warning. But I lie strategically, sufficiently to protect my identity.

But any site that says I'm a bigger ramper than share_talk or PennyStockPuntz or Enrico, well, LOL. And Jambo is ranked high as a ramper. Heh.

Morningstar is now reporting (https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/ggp/ownership) that pro aurum ValueFlex bought 1.3 million shares of GGP in August. (Managed funds typically delay their reporting so others can't just follow what they do and take advantage of their research.)

This is not exactly the most successful fund in the precious metals sector, but presumably they bought around 12p and so are happy with their investment. :) Of course, with any August buy it is possible they were just front-running GDXJ and sold already.

@thedoors
Nice post. I am convinced the silence is not only intentional but necessary (because it is so out of character). I have not been able to come up with any logical reason for that which would be negative for shareholders.

@jackthebear
My opinion only:

1. Charts are useful for traders and perhaps barely useful for long term holders (in deciding entry point/exit point).
2. Some investors/holders view traders with disdain.
3. Traders did us a favour -- there is a reason we got into GDXJ and some others with qualifying MCAP did not. It's the liquidity. As a result millions of shares are in sticky hands.

So I don't mind the trading, so I don't mind charting. You just have to recognise the limitations of charts in a strongly news-driven share. Macro news (such as vaccine news, for instance) can significantly impact gold prices and thus GGP. And of course, news from Scallywag could break your charts very quickly.

Perhaps if you used a subject header that started "Traders: " or "Charting: " so that those who aren't interested could easily ignore, it might go better.

All the best.

Nice to see you all. Hope some of you stay engaged here, pick an area to master, and contribute to the research / knowledge base here. If not, well, I hope you buy more shares and help push the price up for all of us! :)

Best of luck to all.

Why? If they find gold at Scallywag it will likely take 5-6 years to get it out of the ground. A day or two delay on announcing it, even a month or two or three or six, won't make any difference at all to the success of the company.

@Droverman
I like your imaginary world, too. :)

Ah, Bamps, you know so much more about this stuff than I do but there's a third reason it could have happened. Here it is.

The RC drilling hit no mineralisation until the very bottom of the hole but the last metre showed 1,859 g/t Au. So they had to check a little deeper to see if it kept going further down.

I'm not interested in your facts. I'm starting a new world where I create the facts to suit my purposes. The imaginary worlds are always better anyway.

@Everyonesawinner
"Newcrest has first refusal it could well be that it is them asking for it not to be released until they have time to consider the results. If its good then all kinds of offers could be put on the table from so many possible avenues"

But "first refusal" doesn't mean they get first shot at a deal and have the right to make a deal before anyone else puts an offer on the table. It means virtually the opposite -- that they have the right to match any deals we get from elsewhere.

We can negotiate with them without talking to others if we want but we have every right to talk to whoever we want. We have every right to announce the results, have a party, and invite the world. The only thing we can't do is actually sign a deal with anyone else without giving NCM the right to match it.

It would be foolish of us to run off to NCM without seeing if anyone else wants to give us a better deal. And so it would be foolish of us to not tell anyone what we've got. If we have a big hit we should be announcing it to the world. And GH is not the one to be silent about it, either.

@Paddy
"I'm sure that they could keep Newcrest informed of progress but I don't think they could make them aware of the results before they were released to the market."

In general this is true. I believe that there may be some very specific exceptions to that, but if the results were likely to affect the SP, they should be released to those who are buying and selling shares. Otherwise, people may be losing money on their transactions just because the results haven't been released -- that's what the regulations are designed to prevent.

You aren't the first person to make this observation, but many do not want to hear it.

Basically, it's human nature. Something has happened that we did not expect (results are taking longer than anticipated). Since we don't know why, we cast about for an explanation. Those of us of a more pessimistic mindset will assume negative explanations ("nothing found, they don't want to release that until MRE in the hopes that MRE will offset the bad news from Scallywag!"). Those of us of a more optimistic mindset will assume positive explanations ("It's gigantic! They are in JV negotiations with NCM / Rio / Barrick / Newmont / Bill Gates!").

We're not necessarily quick to factor in those facts which don't fit with our assumptions, either.

I'm an optimist, too, but I think you've hit on a fact that doesn't go with the "JV" idea. So I found another optimistic assumption -- early results at Kraken were promising (but not good enough to report to the market yet), they decided on diamond drilling to look further, they are going to release it all together when they get the results from that back.

That's my take on it and I'll hold onto it until proven wrong. I don't want to hear any facts to the contrary. I don't want to hear Bamps telling me they probably had to use the diamond drilling to get through the cover, because that calls my theory into question and I like my theory. :)

Davielad, in that case (Scally a duster), I'd suggest there would be little reason for the BOD to pursue that level of financing.